|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolving New Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Then you need to offer a real explanation for why there is so little published ID research. And why the ID movement couldn't find anyone to take up the offer of a grant from the Templeton Foundation.
quote: We can start with the fact that ID is not distinct from creationism - it includes creationism. I can point out the fact that we have not one demonstrated example of Dembski's CSI in biology - yet you still try to produce "CSI" as evidence for ID.
quote: If so, it must be on the part of the ID movement. It is the ID movement that avoids taking a firm position on what the designer did.
quote: Richard Dawkins is not trying to change science education to make it friendlier to his philosophical views. Nor does he spend large amounts of time, for instance, trying to link his opponents views with the Nazis.
quote: This hardly addresses the point - or the evidence I referred to. Not even the single example you chose to quote. But let us consider how to objectively weigh the evidence: You claimed that there was a rising trend for ID based on a paper published 5 years ago, under dubious circumstances. Objectively, however: 1) One point cannot show a trend. 2) If there were really a rising trend you would not have to go back 5 years to find something. And that's without going into the quality of the paper, the fact that it was not original research or the questionable circumstances surrounding the publication. Think about that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5176 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Then you need to offer a real explanation for why there is so little published ID research. And why the ID movement couldn't find anyone to take up the offer of a grant from the Templeton Foundation. I just researched this on the Discovery Institute site. I saw that a grant from the Templeton Foundation was given to the authors of the "Priveleged Planet".
I can point out the fact that we have not one demonstrated example of Dembski's CSI in biology - yet you still try to produce "CSI" as evidence for ID. Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [ L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189. Emphases added.] I said it before, you see no CSI and you hear no CSI. I have ased this question before, if it is not CSI, then what is it then? Gotta run
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4754 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
quote: The cell is complex - but what evidence actually is that of design? The same argument applies to points 2 and 3. Fine tuning is more interesting - but it's an area where we have no idea what the origin of the constants of nature is. Penrose's argument is that we find a constraint at the beginning of the Universe that resulted in a very low entropy state. But essentially this an unsolved problem. There is no actual evidence that design of the universe took place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
traderdrew,
I said it before, you see no CSI and you hear no CSI. I have ased this question before, if it is not CSI, then what is it then? And I've said it before, too, even if you could identify CSI, it's still an argument from incredulity. In other words, CSI isn't evidence. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5106 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
It can be found anywhere through the microscope to the telecope. The fine-tuning of all of these things: 1. the cell 2. the terrestrial environment of the earth (things such as life supporting cycles and radioactive isotopes) and our life supporting moon. 3. the solar system and its position in the galaxy which also happens to be a galaxy better suited to support life. 4. fine-tuning of physics of our universe such as gravity and nuclear force. Here is an example I found from physics: Mathematician Roger Penrose (Penrose 1981) has estimated that the margin of error permitted here was less than 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power (that is, 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros, more zeros than there are particles in the universe!) No, he did not 'estimate'. He threw numbers together without showing they actually meant anything but came up with a big, big number. For them to have any meaning, the likelihood of those values being different must be known. Please show me where the range of possible values and corresponding probabilities have been determined. In fact, a thorough statistical analysis of all known universes shows that the probability of a universe existing with the exact properties we see in this one is ... unity. Exactly 1/1. But, more than that, none of this is evidence FOR design. It shows no demonstrable traces of the implementation of design. Despite your claims to the contrary, all you have IS your disbelief in the ability of unassisted natural processes to do things. 'It's just so unlikely' is NOT evidence FOR ID.
You wouldn't accept that throwing the broken pieces of a vase into a bag and shaking it would create a new vase. You would demand an explanation other than that one. Of course. As nothing like that had been seen to have happened, I would be extremely skeptical of it. I don't know of anyone who thinks that's something that happens. Except for the completely clueless anti-science types which try to misrepresent what science says in some 'tornado-in-a-junkyard-making-an-airlpane' spew, I haven't seen anybody put forth that kind of an idea. But it does seem to indicate the difference between attribution and explanation isn't something you've grasped very well. Or maybe you can show in what way ID is an explanation (or necessary part of an explanation), NOT an attribution, for ... well, anything. What happened and how did it happen, not just 'designer-did-it'. You see, it's the fact that no research has been done, is being done, is planned on being done into the things which 'could' make it an explanation that keeps it, and quite rightly so, in the company of other occult pursuits like Astrology. Edited by jacortina, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi traderdrew,
Conduct a google search with these terms - "James Shapiro natural genetic engineering" and click the fifth link down. You could have just posted the link ... which is more accurate than this (google popularity is based on use and links) I get http://www.iscid.org/brig-klyce-chat.php The "The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID)" website link is not a direct link to Shapiro, and the article in question only mentions him briefly, by the moderator. You just got lambasted for posting information from a person that told falsehoods, and it appears you have not learned anything from it. Post a link to Shapiro, and let's see what HE says, not what some anonymous IDist SAYS he says.
University of Chicago, James A Shapiro quote: Any bets that what he says is taken out of context by the ID crowd? Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: To write a book, not to do scientific research. And you still haven't addressed the main point - where is the ID research ?
quote: Just because two different concepts are given similar names does not make them the same. It may or may not be an example of Dembski's CSI BUT NOBODY HAS SHOWN THAT IT IS or even given a good reason to think that it is. You ought to know this by now. If you are going to accuse me of willful blindness, just for understanding an ID argument and pointing out it's flaws - which is what you've just done - you throw out any pretence of honestly seeking the truth. You just want to support ID and the truth can go hang. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
It might have a point, but we have no way of knowing it because everything about how this paper came to be has been tainted. Um, we could read the paper. Its not as if peer review is the be all and end all of review in science, it isn't the ultimate seal of approval. To be honest it doesn't matter if the paper was reviewed and approved by Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers its still a rubbishy little review paper which does nothing to show positive evidence for ID and equally little to make a compelling argument against modern evolutionary theory. It seems odd to abbrogate our own critical faculties by saying we can't tell if it has a point or not. You might have a stronger point if it was some primary research where fraud might be an issue, but scientific fraud frequently gets past peer review because that isn't really what peer review is designed to weed out. And in any case it is only a review article, all you need to do to fact check it is see if the references Meyer gives support his argument and whether his argument actually makes senese. In my view the whole rigmarole surrounding the peer review and publication of this paper is incidental to how worthless it is as either science or evidence supportive of ID. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
traderdrew writes: Can't you see that it is not only "god of the gaps", it is also "evolution of the gaps" or an "argument from ignorance of natural causes". You are correct that we are following a "natural causes of the gaps" approach. We believe that what we don't know will eventually be explained by natural causes. This is because throughout millennia of experience, all scientific questions have resolved to natural causes, and not a single one to God. The ID position is that a certain scientific question, namely the cause of the diversity of life on Earth, has been answered, and that the cause is God, not evolution. They argue that they've eliminated all possible natural causes, and therefore only God remains as a possibility. But they haven't eliminated all possible natural causes, of course, and the argument that our current lack of knowledge about specific events in evolutionary history is evidence that they would be naturalistically impossible is IDists contribution to the "God of the gaps" fallacy, and as already pointed out, not a single scientific qustion has ever resolved to God. Before one can begin claiming God as one of the possible answers to scientific questions, one first has to have at least one case where actual evidence has resolved some scientific question to God. Only then would proposing God as the answer to unresolved scientific questions make any sense. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5040 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
What a great post Percy - that expresses exactly what I think, but expressed with perfect clarity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5176 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
In fact, a thorough statistical analysis of all known universes shows that the probability of a universe existing with the exact properties we see in this one is ... unity. Exactly 1/1. If you can prove this then I will leave this site forever. (((Documentation please.)))
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You do realise that it's trivially true ?
(Read it carefully and think).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5176 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
You didn't find it. Here it is.
James A. Shapiro
You just got lambasted for posting information from a person that told falsehoods, and it appears you have not learned anything from it. If James Shapiro told falsehoods then I suggest you provide some supporting evidence from a scientific journal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5106 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
If you can prove this then I will leave this site forever. I suggest that if your understanding of statistics and probability is so woefully poor, you should avoid basing your worldview on something you are completely ignorant of. We know of exactly one universe, the one we're in. The one we're in has the properties that it has. Therefore, the probability of a universe existing with the properties we see in our own is precisely unity. 1/1. 100%. The probability of anything existing which is known to exist is that same unity, that same 100%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5176 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
If you are going to accuse me of willful blindness, just for understanding an ID argument and pointing out it's flaws - which is what you've just done - you throw out any pretence of honestly seeking the truth. You just want to support ID and the truth can go hang. I have tried to find evidence against what I believe. I found this in another link on this forum: In the rebuttal posted above (through the IIDB debate site) it states that protein SEQUENCES can differ by 80% while still holding the same conformational shape and the same enzymatic properties. I cannot find any good evidence for the above quote on the net. Claims don't cut it and there are a lot of claims on this forum. In fact, I have found evidence that contradicts the above on google searches on scientific papers. CSI in DNA?? The nucleotides are arranged in specified sequences are they not? The nucleotides are information that is ultimately trascribed into amino acids which then form proteins. Is this not true. I guess Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis has been proven false. Has it??? I would not consider "Specified" as a subjective term. I would consider "complex" as subject to interpretation. However, I would definitely draw the line where proteins have to bind to proteins in more than one specific way at specific places. Each protein is made to fit with other proteins but each protein is assembled independently from each other. The coherence required would call for "complex" information. Do the proteins somehow morph into each other during their formations? I'm tired of arguing with walls. I'm begging you to shut me up.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024